explain_resource

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, establishing it as a safe read operation. The description adds the action 'Get documentation', which is consistent and clarifies the output nature. However, it does not disclose potential behaviors like network calls, rate limits, or output verbosity. With annotations covering the read-only aspect, the description provides adequate but not rich transparency.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource. It contains no filler words, and every part is meaningful. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the complexity of the tool (5 parameters, no output schema), the description is somewhat minimal. It does not explain the return format or that it mimics `kubectl explain`. While the schema covers parameters, the description lacks context about what kind of documentation is returned (plaintext or structured). It is adequate but not comprehensive for an agent.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With 100% schema description coverage, all five parameters already have clear explanations in the schema. The description adds no additional semantics beyond a high-level summary. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema carries the load.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description 'Get documentation for a Kubernetes resource or field' clearly states the verb (Get) and resource (documentation for a Kubernetes resource or field). It distinguishes from sibling tools like kubectl_get which retrieves actual resource instances, and exec_in_pod which executes commands. The purpose is specific and unambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_api_resources or kubectl_describe. It does not mention that it is best for API schema exploration, not for runtime data. This lack of usage context leaves the agent without clear decision-making criteria.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.